Posted
by
Zonk
on Tuesday November 23, 2004 @11:19AM
from the city-17-has-more-oxygen-than-mars dept.

Thanks to Laurie W, who writes "Sudhain.com has a great comparison of D3 vs. HL2 (funny, too)." From the article: "Since Half Life 2 was released this week, I thought it'd make a good time to take the two games head to head and see which came out on top. I've spent a few hours in the beginning of each, playing through the first few levels. Although I haven't completed either, I've spent enough time in each (I think) to develop a feel for what the later sections of each game will be like. Given that each has been fairly consistent thus far, it'd take a major shift for my opinion of either to change significantly."

Anyone who has played the later levels in D3, especially the Hell levels, will know that the game gets drastically better near the end. I found the first levels of D3 to be monotonous and boring. This article is like comparing apples and oranges with the added insult of not even removing the skins.

I think he makes a fair comparison on 'feel'. He isnt going for start to end comparison, he's more pointing out how it feels to play both, and he finds half life much more enjoyable, quite understandably, even though D3 is still a really good game.

Really? When I played Doom3 on the medium difficulty setting, playing through the game seemed like a leveling treadmill. Everything got a little harder as things went along like all games do, but this one just seemed that once you've played the first few levels, the gameplay was exactly the same, kill the mobs, find the key, finish level...

I found HL2 to constantly change the gameplay experience (maybe too often!).

A good game for gameplay progression I thought was Farcry. It seemed like there was always

Everything got a little harder as things went along like all games do,

Nope. Once you acquired the Soul Cube weapon, it got drastically easier. Full health restore + 1 instant kill for every 5 monsters you fight, which even counts the tiny spiders? It made gameplay so much easier it was almost fun. That was the only real gameplay change-up.

kill the mobs

Your vocabulary is heavily MUD-biased. (Although they call them MMORPGs these days).

I concur. I was unimpressed and becoming bored with the game for the first part, but nearing the latter parts of the game I started to enjoy it a whole lot more, and finished thinking "that was a great game".

It is a downside that you do get bored with the earlier part and need to wait, but you must persevere to enjoy the whole game.

Does the end justify the crapiness of the beginning? That's a matter of opinion, but for me it doesn't. That even kept me from playing through all of Quake 2. It kept me from getting through all of the Doom 3 demo. Same old, stupid hidden compartment tricks. It looks damn pretty, but I'm not gonna put up with that other crap just to get to later levels.

I disagree, with the exception of the one "hell" level, the later levels get monotonous. And after you get the soul cube, aren't even challenging anymore. They need to nerf the hell outof the soul cube.

It's quite fair to compare games more based on their beginnings than their middles or ends.

Everybody plays the beginning- not everyone makes it to the end. Especially if the start isn't very good, you can't expect people to stick through to the finish. So if D3 improved at the end, that's not much praise.

The original Half-Life was the opposite: the game got much worse right near the finish. But it's still remembered as a great achievement. All in all, its

Parent is not a troll. No reviewer who has failed to do the courtesy to the author(s) of finishing a game, book, movie, etc. should be taken seriously.

Note: one of the reasons game "journalism" is such crap is that it's built on hype that begins even before the game's released, usually based on the slightest sample of the forthcoming game ("XYZ looks like a real winner from what we've seen").

If you are going to review games, at least finish them. You never know how much an ending can ruin a game for you. It happens in movies too. Remember AI and the new Planet of the Apes? If AI ended earlier instead of the whole weird alien thing and if Planet of the Apes didn't end in such a ridiculous way, those would have been decent movies. This guy is just rushing off a review before they become irrelevant...which really, they already are.

Wow, I had no idea about those aliens being evolved AI. It really didn't explain that or maybe I missed it...how did you know this was the case? To me, the movie would have been better if *SPOILER FOLLOWS* he just dies under water looking at the statue...not the stupid I'll recreate your mom for a day from hair, but even though we can bring her back to life, it's only for 24 hours craziness...it really ruined the whole movie for me...whether or not those aliens were future AI or just normal aliens:P

Maybe you need to buy some sort of hi-tech equipment from your local pharmacy (hint: it consists of a stick with a bit of cotton on it) to clean your ears then. They say that fairly clearly in the voice-off and the long speeches.

Agreed that the first two thirds of AI would have made it a better movie, but that's far from making it a "bad" movie because they left that third in (which they probably did because it was in Kubrick's script and since he died before filming it I guess Spielberg didn't want to ch

If you compare it to the trash that comes out of the US/India/Hong Kong on a weekly basis, it was certainly an excellent movie. If you compare it to the global output of all movies ever produced, then, fair enough, it was an average movie.

Hmm, no need to be a dick. I saw it a long time ago and just didn't remember that part at all. You could have just said that they stated it. Heck, I may have been asleep at that point because it should have ended 15 minutes before that point.

The reason they only let her come back for 24 hours was that:A. She was an illusion.B. They only needed her that long to put the boy into the infinite loop (by the mother illusion telling him to go to sleep) the AIs had decided on.

An infinite loop for an AI is essentially a really nice way to euthanize them, of course.

I'd like to add Jurassic Park II to the list of movies that had a really ridiulous ending, which ruined the.... oh wait, the entire movie sucked. But the ending (with the T-rex running around California) was really, really bad.

It's amazing that Hollywood could ruin such a good book. Then again, they do it all the time, so maybe it's not so amazing anymore.

Finally, A.I. was an excellent fucking movie, and is totally underrated. It was not a sci-fi movie so much as a sci-fi fairy tale. It started out a bit more "normal" but became much more "fairy-tale like" by the end.

For me the problem with the switch was the first half felt way more creepy-Kubrick, and the second half was more glitzy-neon-schmaltzy-Spielberg. Not that Kubrick didn't take u-turns in his movies... but it just felt too obvious. By the end I was just disappointed.

All I have to say is my out-of-box experience with HL2 has been smooth overall. After 4 months, my Doom III is still virtually unplayable with a ton of white spots. My ATI Radeon 9800 pro 128MB has been a total disappointment for Doom III after a million different catalyst drivers.

I've had no problems playing Doom III on my Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB, Half-Life 2 as well. It's probably more of a software issue than hardware I would guess. Are all of your mobo, direct x, etc drivers up to date as well? Not flaming, just trying to help.:)

AC is probably right, I had the same problem with a geforce 2. White spots everywhere, and other artifacts too. It was clearly a faulty card since the number of artifacts was dependent of the hotness of the thing. It took only few minuts for it to be really hot though... It wasn't appearent in every games, only those that used T&L IIRC. Underclocking the thing did help alot, but i couldn't get rid of them completly. Get a refund if you can...

Considering that Half Life 2 changes incredibly when you get the physics gun (and takes a complete flip turn in the last two levels), I wouldn't say that was an accurate statement.
Oh, and after the first couple of hours of Doom 3, it plummets in quality. Scripted scares are at a minimum, replaced by identical looking rooms and repetetive enemy spawns.
One of those unfortunate cases where the sample doesn't represent the overall quality.

The physics are fun, but they're certainly not realistic by any means. If you get on a cart, pushing it can make it go forward, while this is plainly impossible because it's an internal force. Oh, and you can't rotate objects while you hold them.

There was a game a couple of years back called Trespasser, which while abysmal in terms of overall game experience had some really cool elements. For a start it had a brilliant physics engine, which while clunky to use from a users point of view, could do everything that Half Life 2 could do, and a little bit more (like rotate objects in your hand). So the physics in Half Life 2 aren't as revolutionary as people are making out. They're just better used.

Doom3 graphical wow comes at the price of not being able to do a lot of the incredible, but intensive and open environment things that HL2 does. And high polygon counts? Try again: Doom3 has very LOW polygon counts: it makes up for this with incredible normal mapping.

I hear Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 both have similar physics engines. The thing is, Doom 3 doesn't have a gravity gun......yet. Apparently there's going to be one in the expansion pack (developed by a third party). Yes, its a blatent ripoff, but so what? I hear you'll be able to catch enemy rockets and other projectiles, so it might even be an incremental improvement.

Since the server *might* get slashdotted and since the article is spread over 6 pages and since some of youz cannot access 1337 gamerz pagez at workzzor here is the article.

*Note* All the pictures (which are really pretty) are not here, sorry:(

OK TFA!!

I have a confession to make. While I've benchmarked it and tested it, until the past few days, I haven't ever sat down and really played Doom 3. Oh I'd run through the first few minutes of it, but life and a hectic schedule had gotten in the way of me spending much time in the game, and since I didn't want to spoil my impression, I haven't even read any of the reviews. Since Half Life 2 was released this week, I thought it'd make a good time to take the two games head to head and see which came out on top. I've spent a few hours in the beginning of each, playing through the first few levels. Although I haven't completed either, I've spent enough time in each (I think) to develop a feel for what the later sections of each game will be like. Given that each has been fairly consistent thus far, it'd take a major shift for my opinion of either to change significantly. There are games that've done this (the first half of Jedi Knight II feels like a Star Wars-themed FPS, the post-light-saber-acquisition portion of the game is amazing), but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

Comparing the Hype® Drive:

According to Vivendi, Half Life 2:...has surpassed our expectations in every sense - its high-quality graphics, ground-breaking physics and immersive first-person shooter gameplay set a new standard for PC action games"..."Half-Life 2 will go down as one of the best-selling PC titles, and we are thrilled to deliver this ground-breaking title to the worldwide gaming community this fall."

The PR machine continues:

"In 2004, Half-Life 2 will take the suspense, challenge and visceral charge of the original to new heights of realism and responsiveness. Half-Life 2 opens the door to a world where the player's presence affects everything around him, from the physical environments to the behaviors - even the emotions - of both friends and enemies."

That's not actually too bad, though the cynical part of me is tempted to distil this into: "Its pretty and the enemies actually fire back." And couldn't "ground-breaking physics" be seen as some sort of pun and / or construction simulator?

So how's Doom 3 sound, in comparison?

"A sci-fi horror masterpiece, DOOM 3's dramatic storyline, pulse-pounding action, incredible graphics, and ground-breaking technology combine to draw you into the most frightening and gripping first-person gaming experience ever created..."DOOM 3 is a videogame experience unlike any before it. From the cinema quality visuals and the incredible 5.1 sound, to the terrifying atmosphere and hyper-realistic environments, the whole game screams 'interactive horror film!' Add in the most ferocious line up of demons Hell has ever brought to bear, and you have an experience so intense that you'll need to keep your heart medicine handy."

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking John Carmack did *not* write this PR. Doom 3 easily wins the 'Hype® Drive" portion of the comparison, with incredible use of such words as "masterpiece", hyper-realistic", and even the daring exclamation point. I'm not sure I want to play a hyper-realistic game (it sounds like a game written from the viewpoint of an overactive eight-year-old).

Bring on the beta blockers--I'm ready for Doom.

Prior to either game's release, there were readers and enthusiasts commenting that Doom 3 would be the pretty game, while Half Life 2 would have the good story. Just from the screenshots I'd seen and from what John Carmack had said about the game, I was convinced this wasn't going to be the case. Doom 3, I was sure, would break id's record of offering excellent visuals with mediocre-to-no storylines. Based on the PR copy, Doom 3 certainly seems t

pc game developers are externalizing the cost of producing multiplayer elements to the modding community. the multiplayer versions will come, and they will be bad-ass, and nobody will get paid. maybe someone will get a job.

a small, dedicated crew of xbox hackers will have moderate success mucking with halo2, but will receive the opposite of the encouragement the pc scene sees, due to ms's business model for the xbox and evident goal of using the xbox as a springboard for trusted computing.

UT2k4 is by far the most moddable, but HL has developed the "mod stereotype" - people think of it as the ultimate moddable engine because of the success of CS and TF and the way that Valve supports its modders (DE has cought up on that issue).

So for most moddable, I insist that UT2k4 will remain - but HL2 will have more mods because of its popular perception as "the platform to mod".

UT uses a Java-like embedded language with a full OOP class tree to work with. Also, UT's tri-paradigm mapping system (BSP+mapmodel+landscape) is very easy to use and allow mappers to work in whatever way feels most comfortable to them.

Plus, UT is most conducive to small mods - UT mods don't have to be TCs, as they're non exclusive - you can make a mod that replaces one vehicle in Onslaught, and another guy can make a mod that replaces a different vehicle in ONS, and a third guy replaces some weapons, and

Having completed both games, I'd have to aggree with the article's author. D3 just gets plain old monotonous towards the end. Both are pretty much rails but the vehicles, gravity gun and physics are fantastic.

Why do you cite "1) wait a month or so"? First of all, Doom 3 wasn't playable under Linux either until several weeks after its release so that point applies to it as well. And second, I'm not sure that Valve will ever release a Linux client of HL2 (they never did for HL/CS) so I doubt waiting will help.

If Carmack hadn't basically said, repeatedly, precisely what it was going to be. He said it was going to be Doom Redux, we got Doom Redux.

Personally I thought Doom Redux was pretty good, although it's the last monster closet I ever want to see. I agree largely with the System Shock 1.5 critique. I had a lot of nostalgic fun playing Doom gameplay, but now I want to see something more credible.

1) Doom was only fast in parts. Several parts were slow and creepy as well. Sure, it was more frantic overall, but not like night and day. If you take some of the dark/oddly lit sections of Doom and expanded it, slap on an awesome graphics engine, you pretty much have Doom 3.

2) Doom 3 wasn't survival horror.

3) Doom 3 was also only slow in parts.

4) Much of Doom 3's level design was lifted from the original Doom concepts. Many reviews even complained about it.

I agree with the previous poster, I don't think Doom 3 was 'Doom Redux' at all.

The origional Doom games were much faster over all, even the 'slower' bits were much faster than the fastest parts of Doom 3, there were very dark sections in Doom but they were used sparingly to great effect (I didn't like them all that much, but they worked well because they were infrequent), not constantly, to the degree of invoking boredom and frustration as in Doom 3.

How much more different would you want? Doom2 had rooms containing 60 individual monsters- where you could see ALL of them at once. What's the limit on "awake" monsters in Doom 3? 8? 10? And half of those are probably hidden in the blackness.

Or what about the Doom cyberdemon? Dodging back and forth around each of the blasts from his triple-rocket bursts while pumping him full of shells. Single well-timed keystrokes were all that stood between you and explosive death.

First I must say that i agree with what this article has to say so far. But the guy who wrote this article hasn't even gotten the gravity gun. that doesn't say much for his commitment to gaming. I acuired the grav gun in the first session. And having played both games to there completion I must say that both games look very good and perform excelent but i like HL2 better Steam is an awsome concept and the water is better that it is in D3 and lets just say that i prefer a story to no story anyday and drop

Has anyone noticed the hl2 banner running in the background? why Im not surprised HL2 came on top? anyway, besides the points already mentioned the article basically boils down to: "doom 3 has this BUT hl2 has THIS instead!"

Besides isnt a bit futile to see another article mentioning Doom 3 is dark? news flash: it was made like that on purpose AND not all areas are dark or repetitive. (specially the last ones) I remember the first time I played I was so psyched a half hour later I shot a pipe which barely resembled a human figure, dark areas were MEANT to be dark DOOM3 is an HORROR game. I used the "duct tape" mod for a while and then I realized it really detracted a bit from the fear and turned into a regular action shooter, PLAY IT like it is, you wont regret it, trust me.

If you want an ACTION game go get HL2 instead they are different generes, arent we mature enough to recognize that not all fps are the same just because they have the same perspective?

I played the first half hour of Doom 3 and got bored and annoyed. This was the same as a number of firends in my experience. One guy who bought it couldn't be bothered playing it for more than a few hours, it just wasn't enjoyable. The other, a pretty serious gamer, finished it, but only after switching on cheats because he was sick of hunting through levels looking for ammo, only to be ambushed by monsters the whole time.

Yeh, I liked the review that said that basically all the ammo and powerups were just swithces to bring in monsters. Doom 3 was like a repetitive horror film that uses the same lame gimmicks over and over and over and over until they are just beaten to death. (Although it DID have its moments, like the awsome intro sequnce for the pinkydemon and the guy with the lamp and when that demon appears behind the stairs wtih a light behind it. That literally made me jump.)

So I haven't gotten past the first few pages, but I have a good idea whodunnit, don't worry, I won't offer any spoilers. Also read the first few pages of Grapes of Wrath, and though I haven't quite finished, I feel fully capapble of comparing the two...

What's the deal? These people almost NEVER have played all the way through these games. That's like reading the first two chapters of a book, then writing a review about the book based only on what you've read.
Sure, some insights about the game can be gleaned from a moderate amount of play. But to compare two entirely different games against each other, shouldn't you at least have experienced both completely first?
Pffft, I say!

I am one of those suckers that basicly built a new P4 system to support Doom3 prior to its release. Actually I got doom3 for free when I purchased my nVidia 6800 GT board which is the one recommended by ID for Doom3. So Doom3 works pretty good for me, with minimal technical glitches, and smooth level transition. The graphics are exceptional in illuminated or dark environments. I haved beat Doom3 a few times as I go up the lader of difficulty. I'm half way through nightmare level, but I've put that on hold as I have purchased HalfLife-2, and Halo-2. I beat Halo-2 in a day, don't even bother.

Technically speaking HL2 is a nightmare. Installing the game requires 5 disc's which scares me. Doom3 uses 3 discs though, and new games tend to have more, so it isn't a major bitch. The major bitches include a few things like the product registration. Firstly the product registration is insane, and I have never experienced a more overtly anoying process than this. Force feeding me steam is not good taste, although I used to endorse it back when I could play the original HalfLife for free. Anyways, Valve installed Steam, and steam took forever to download, and decipher some files. I don't mind a game contacting the mother ship before I play, but this was horendous. Moving on in the list of major bitches, the level transition takes forever, and does't indicate any progress. The only what I know my computer isn't locked up is by pressing the num-lock or tab key, and seeing the lights. Other not so major of a bitch issues include a few visual glitches durring fast movement or rapid change of Freeman's view/perspective, especially durring combat.

I don't seem to recal any moment where I drove a vehicle in doom3, althought I keep thinking that I'm forgeting something? Anyways, HalfLife-2 has some great outdoor areas. The problem is having a design that works for outdoor areas means either having really huge outdoor maps, or have anoying outdoor level transitions. Sorta like hitting an invisible wall that causes an annoying 2 minute level transition. HalfLife-2 actually has both huge outdoor maps, but also long map changes once you venture off the edge of a map. I don't seem to recal Doom-3 having any outdoor areas aside from the ocassional skybox map on the surface of mars where you quickly leave for a finite Ox2 supply. In a Weird way I kinda percieve Domm-3 story line to be very similare to the original HalfLife storyline, athough the ID people seem to claim that they are just retelling the original Doom story, just different. I seem to recal some physics in Doom3, but it was realistinc, and minimal. In HL2 I can pick things up, thrown them, put them down. Valve takes it to the next level with a gravity gun that you only get once you get beyond the first few levels (further than the guy doing thsi review has got to). THE gravity gun lets you move heavy objects, and repel smaller objects at high-velocity.

My conclusion is Doom3 has a technically better game play, less fuss, more fun. HL2 has equally impressive graphics, better use of physics, and better interactivity with the world environment.

Doom3? Better gameplay? Eh? No. Hl2 is worlds more creative with a far greater variety of neat new experiences. It also has something id doesn't quite have: powerfully good game design. Valve is a master at steadily building in new elements and then combining them for teh gameplay win. Doom3 is the exact same game, exact same experiences, that id has made for years, now 20% prettier.

I can narrow that down. HL2 allows grabing objects, throwing of objects, puting down objects, outdoor maps, and driving vehicles. Doom3 has the physics capability to have the same type of puzzles in HL2, the grabbing of items, etc.

I don't choose to forget that the Doom-3 engine itself is the product ID is selling, not the game. However Valve is primarily a game development studio, ID is a technology driver. Valve makes games to be playable (to sell units), where ID makes them to be pretty (to sell engine l

Doom3 is the exact same game, exact same experiences, that id has made for years

I wish that were true! The combat action of Doom (and Doom2) was tremendously better than the latest game. Frantic run&gun battles, side-stepping fireballs and bringing down one more brown imp with each pump of your shotgun... it was great.

So instead in Doom3, you creep through the darkness looking for monsters. There will rarely be more than 3 at a time, because the engine can't handle it. And when you see/hear these

I have to agree with anyone who read the article and felt like it was very poor journalism. First of all, right from the start the author mentions that he only played a little bit of each game. I think he said Alpha Labs 3 is as far as he played in Doom 3, that's what, 15% into the game? This is no more useful to me than the forum and comments flames from jaded gamers who spam their opinion all over the place after playing through just the intro to a game. If it was a good article, I think first of all he would have played through both games so that he could actually tell us which one he actually likes better than the other, not which one he thinks he may like better than the other, and instead of just saying one is better than the other, he could recommend one or the other to the reader based on their preferences. These are just some basics of writing review/opinion pieces. This guy makes himself sound like an ass.

What would I have said? Well, I think most people will enjoy both games. As for casual gamers or people who are new to FPS games, I would say Doom 3. HL2 has some puzzles and concepts that any FPS nut will breeze by, but someone who hasn't been playing these games all that long will find themselves frustrated. For instance, I was watching my girlfriend play HL2 and she couldn't get past the train yard, because she is not coordinated enough to time the jump from the train top over the fence to get to the next part, she would have been stuck there for ages if I wasn't there to take over and do the jump for her. Some of the puzzles will confuse people who didn't already have a good idea about how the game was going to work as far as physics puzzles go. Doom 3 is mostly just a pretty frag-fest, my girlfriend has gotten much farther in Doom 3 than she can get in HL2 without my help.

Hardcore gamers are going to choose one or the other based on what kind of game they like to play. HL2 has more variety in it's gameplay, with more puzzles and more ways to dispatch enemies (knocking out platforms they are standing on, using objects in the world, etc.) where as Doom 3 is point, click and kill and focuses on little else other than keeping the situation tense at all times. I really like both, and luckily I do not have to choose one or the other. If you like killing everything in sight and being a bad-ass, maybe Doom 3 is your cup of tea. If you like to explore and are looking for more than just brainless action, then maybe you will get your kicks out of HL2. I say get 'em both, and maybe toss in an Xbox and Halo 2 for good measure.

I'm the author of the article in question.
First: I state clearly that this is not a comprehensive review.
Second: I now have the Gravity Gun in HL2. Its tons of fun to play with, but it doesn't change anything I said about physics or the physics in Half Life--namely that they are excellent and that the puzzles are mostly good.
Third: I'd agree that Doom 3 is easier to play than Half Life 2--but Doom 3 is mainly a graphic-driven game, and casual gamers are less-likely to have the high-end hardware ne

First of all, let me apologize, it is fair that you stand by your article as not being a comprehensive review, the article is flagged on the site as "First Impressions" and you do clearly state that you haven't played through both games. Fair enough.
On the other hand, I don't think it is fair to outright recommend one over the other when you haven't finished either of them. To me, that is almost like watching the first 15 minutes of a movie and telling someone which they should see based on your initial

You make fair points, and perhaps I should've been more nuanced at the end of the article. I'd have been less quick to do so if every sign I'd seen hadn't pointed me to my conclusions. Even now that I'm yet deeper into both games, I haven't seen anything that really changed my opinion on either.
BUT--
I can see your point when you say that in principle, this is a bad thing to do. I will look over the last few paragraphs and see if they can be shifted a bit to keep my meaning while not giving such a str

Why the FRICK can't people just play BOTH games? For crying out loud, they are both good! Or, if you don't want to spend $3000 on a gaming computer, play Halo. Whatever! You should be working anyway...
-d

I think it's obvious to everyone that you should release a review until you've played the entire thing. However, it is a good idea to catalog your impressions during the game.

As someone who has played both games twice in about the same length of time, let me offer my "four" cents.

Instead of comparing "apples to oranges", I'll just compare individual feelings about each game.

It's okay, no spoilers.

oom 3 gave me a stronger and more consistent emotional response. I felt like I was going to die around every corner (except about an hour before you go to hell because the jump scenes started getting a little old). Half-Life gave me a wider range of emotions from excitement, fear, compation torwards NPCs, and that warm fuzzy feeling that you get when you open up a big 'ol can of ownage.

To me Doom 3 felt like it went deeper in the story than Half-Life 2 did. You pretty much got some dialog out of every important person on the Mars base while in Half-Life 2, even though the quality and entertainment value of each cutscene was better, it still left with gapping holes in the story. I had to go through every speach sample while talking to those 3 armed aliens to at least get an idea about what happened between Half-Life 1 to present. And at the end--again, more gapping holes left in the storry. Not to say that the story is flawed, because it is great, there's just some things that have not been explained that I really felt entitled to know. I can forgive cliffhanger endings, but not ever knowing what happened between the two games and not really knowing the connection kind of bugs me. I picked up a few more bits playing through the second time, but still the answers don't seem to be there.

HL2 had faster pacing but there was a portion of the game (late C17 stage) where there was about 2 hours of the same type of gameplay. That almost ruined the beautiful pacing up until that point but the last stage made it up to me. Doom 3 had pretty consistant pacing, or consistantly monotonous, but being able to get closer and closer to the horrible truth and understand more about what happened made it worth it. I never once got let down by a lack of scary scenes or wimpier monsters. It was consistent.

Overall, Doom 3 is more refined in what it tried to do. And for that it's worth even a third play. Half-Life 2 was more fun in that you got a wider range of gameplay. The physics engine was mainly eye candy and was used for puzzles, which was very successful.

And as far as graphics, who says that the Doom 3 engine can't do as good water as Half-Life 2? Are there any rivers or lakes on Mars? That's why there isn't any. Both engines are capable of it. It's just a fragment shader. The main difference I see is character AI in HL2 and shadowing in Doom 3.

Just play both games. Both are very good and are worth your time and money. HL2 might get more replay value out of me thanks to Counter-Strike:Source. Either way I'm not going to let baises or hatred for anti piracy measures to keep me from enjoying both of these titles.

Just a note on what you've said here: (I am the author of the article in question).
I stated the following:
In all fairness, I cant' say that the Source engine is "better" than the D3 engine at water rendering (I haven't seen any water in Doom 3 to compare to, and I've got a feeling that any running liquid I find may not be a fair comparison).
So I agree. I never said D3 couldn't do water as well as HL2.

Well, I really thought that in most the part of HL2, I was blazing through the whole game without a real goal.
What also bothered me a great deal is the game linearity: while almost every FPS is greatly linear, HL2 is one of the few which attempted to render outdoor environment and an urban war. However, the later stage of the game seems to be "get under that rock, over than bulding, to this ladder, to this wooden board to progress". I thought even Serious Sam 2 had more liberty in this respect than HL2.

The problem with Doom3's story via the PDAs is that they are all pre-incident. This gave the story nowhere to go but the obvious. It would have been far more interesting if some of the PDAs had been recorded post incident, tracking some ongoing events within the facility: attempts to resist, leading to more interactions with NPCs. As such, what there was of Doom3's story (Swan, the OMG YOU STUPID IDIOTS HES A ZOMBIE MASTER, etc.) was very simplistic, though ok. NPC interaction was generally dull (I can'

...I immensely enjoyed Doom3. I think it's the best engine on earth. And even though this guy picks Half-Life 2 as his preferred game, I consider this article to be quite fair.

I still won't be purchasing Half-Life 2 because I dislike Valve's method of dealing with their community, and dislike Sierra's C&D letters. But I'm not going to try to stop anyone else from buying Half-Life 2 because in the end, video-games are all about entertainment. If HL2 entertains you more than D3 then you owe it to you

Comparing Doom3 to Farcry was a joke. farcry was had multiple paths, better weapons, a better atmosphere(after the first couple of scares in doom 3 that was over) and was just more fund.
So how does HL2 compare to Farcry?